Summary: Baigent completed an interesting review of Europe's Royal Bloodlines
(Merovingian). His writing style makes the subject come to life and appear to be accurate.
However, his ultimate hypothesis rests on very weak and inaccurate biblical quotes
demonstrating a cursory research and knowledge of the bible. This issue renders his final
hypothesis highly doubtful and his base genealogical research of the Merovingian
bloodlines fully under question.

Recommendation: I would recommend Baigent's book as interesting and thought provoking
reading, while encouraging self-research and skepticism by the reader. While I found
Baigent's book useful in understanding what family the anti-Christ derives from (that is,
the lineage of the serpent/dragon that dwells in the "sea"), the average person
can be deceived into believing biased suppositions and allegations lacking appropriate
research. Overall, it seems as if Baigent is a dupe who has been supported to spout
whatever stories the Merovingians need to support their own questionable objectives.

Review: Although, highly offensive to Christians, the book can be relevant to
biblically knowledgeable people IF his genealogical research of the royal families from
400 BC forward is accurate. The bizarre myth of the origination of the Merovingians (a
pregnant woman being re-impregnated by a serpent/dragon while swimming in the ocean) can
be re-interpreted from the bible and its symbolism found in the books of Genesis (Gen 3 -
the Serpent) and Revelation (Rev 12 - the dragon). This is the myth that the Merovingian
Dynasty relies on in order to re-acquire the throne of Europe leads Christian's to
interpret the Merovingians to be the ancestors of the still prophetic world leader
(commonly known as the anti-Christ). Further, Baigent touts that this royal family heir
should be able to solve the religious problems and bring together the Jews, Christians,
Moslems - another Christian prophesy specifically regarding the anti-Christ.

Examples of Feeble Research:

1 Re-interpretation of Catholic Church History

Baigent seems to enjoy re-interpreting the Catholic Church's actions into supporting
the tenants of the Merovingian Blood line. But, offers no proof. Numerous times Baigent
notes that the Catholic Church "backs" down when "presented" with the
Prior de Sion "secret information. However, Baigent never confirms the information
presented to the Church, and never provides supporting material to explain the Church's
actions and decisions. His only explanation is theory based on conjecture based on
assumption based on supposition. The Catholic Church may have many reasons to (correctly,
or incorrectly) to make a decision on. The least of the factors affecting the Church's
decisions would be information that is not demonstrable, not confirmable, with no sound
basis to support a change in Church Doctrine and specifically supports the Church's own
prophesies of the Anti-Christ.

This feeble research weakens "Baigent's" base genealogical research. NOTE:
This review is not to be interpreted as a defense of the Catholic Church - it stands in
its own beliefs, blessings, blood and sins. Nor, is this review a blind defense to
Christianity - it is based on valid study of the bible and its text that is verifiable to
all readers.

2 Two Genealogies of Christ

Baigent accounts for the differences between the 2 genealogies in Matthew and Luke as
demonstrating "mistakes" in the bible. However, the issue is readily
understandable: Matthew and Luke present Christ's genealogy for different purposes, and
from different perspectives.

Matthew communicates the gospel from viewpoint of Jew - Christ is presented as the Lion
of Tribe of Judah. For this, Matthew starts Christ's lineage with Abraham progressing
through David and Solomon, then progressing through Christ's legal father, Joseph, and
finishing by presenting Christ as the Messiah - the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

Luke's genealogy is specifically a very different genealogy, but it states it is of
Jesus the "supposed" son of Joseph which is the son of Heli.... and on. This is
not a "begotten" genealogy (bloodline), but a Mother's genealogy that is
represented in accordance with the Jewish custom - Hebrews did not permit the name of a
woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted the husband as the son of him who was
in reality the father-in-law. That is, Heli is Joseph's Father-in-law. This is consistent
with Old Testament lineages of David the show Boaz as David's ancestor, but does not
mention Rahab, who is also significant and mentioned in other passages.

Luke was a physician and was preoccupied with presenting Christ as the Son of Man - in
his humanity. He showed that Christ was God incarnate. Borne of a Virgin into humanity.
Luke starts Christ's genealogy from 1st man - Adam - to King David. However, Luke goes
through David directly to David's son Nathan - Solomon's brother. His genealogy is then
traced through to Heli, Mary's Father. This demonstrates the actual Blood line of Christ.

Second, these genealogies are very significant in that they comply with every
requirement of prophecy and law in the Hebrew scriptures. Including in Genesis 3, where
the Messiah had to be born of the Virgin. Second, Jeremiah 22 states that God placed a
blood curse on the lineage of David from King Jeconiah forward - that is no one of
Jeconiah's descendants shall sit on the throne of David. Joseph was of this bloodline and
lineage and therefore disqualified from sitting on the throne of David.

Luke's lineage of Mary (Luke 3) goes through David and not through Solomon, but through
Nathan, a branch that avoids the Jeconiah blood curse (Jeremiah 22) "None of His seed
will prosper". Thus, Mary, who is the blood "Virgin" parent of Jesus was
not cursed and therefore the proper blood forebear of the Christ, while Joseph was the
legal heir to the throne, but, not the blood heir of the Messiah.

This issue is in stark contrast to the Merovingian bloodline which requires Joseph's
and Christ's bloodline to support its dynastic ruse. The Merovingian genealogy goes
through the bloodline of Joseph and therefore is accursed by God (Jeremiah 22) and will
specifically never sit upon David's throne.

(Other Genealogical Notes for the Curious) John unabashedly focuses on Christ as the
Son of God - Deity - and includes things in his gospel that are quite different than the
other gospels. John's gospel demonstrates the genealogy of the pre-existent one who was
before all else. He created everything and everything was created by him. Christ
pre-existed all of creation. John uses the term "fulfilled" 38 times to focuses
on who he was as prophesied in the old testament. Baigent fully misses this genealogy and
its full significance of demonstrating Christ as God.

Mark presents Christ as the Suffering Servant who came to earth to serve mankind. Mark
does not give Christ's genealogy because no one cares about the bloodline of a servant.
Mark continually demonstrates Christ's works, or services to his people - those with
faith.

The four gospels are very consistent in how they show Christ and his genealogy as the
Messiah in accordance with the Hebrew scriptures: Matthew, the Legal Heir to the Throne of
David; Luke the lineage of a man from the first man, Adam; John the lineage of God, who
came down as the Messiah; and Mark which shows Christ as the suffering servant, and as
such a servant, does not have a lineage.

studied at
Tufts University, Boston, the University of Chicago and the State University of New York
at Stony Brook.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have co-authored a number of other books, including
the international bestsellers The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,The Dead Sea
Scrolls Deception, and most recently, Secret Germany.